2006 IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium 2006
DOI: 10.1109/aps.2006.1710460
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Integral equation solvers for real world applications - some challenge problems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Accurate solution of EM problems with conductive media requires to consider the loss or finite conductivity of the media in modeling and simulation, especially when the frequency is low or the conductivity is small since the skin depth is large [2]. While the problems can be solved with the robust finite element method (FEM) or other differential equation method (DEM) [3], we use the integral equation method (IEM) to solve them here because the IEM has a smaller solution domain, a better scaling property for computational costs, and no need of implementing an absorbing boundary condition (ABC) compared with the DEM [4] IEM, one usually relies on the surface integral equations (SIEs) with an approximate impedance boundary condition (IBC) [5]. The IBC has been widely studied [6]- [11] because it can dramatically simplify the solved problems, but it also requires that the skin depth be small for conductive media [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accurate solution of EM problems with conductive media requires to consider the loss or finite conductivity of the media in modeling and simulation, especially when the frequency is low or the conductivity is small since the skin depth is large [2]. While the problems can be solved with the robust finite element method (FEM) or other differential equation method (DEM) [3], we use the integral equation method (IEM) to solve them here because the IEM has a smaller solution domain, a better scaling property for computational costs, and no need of implementing an absorbing boundary condition (ABC) compared with the DEM [4] IEM, one usually relies on the surface integral equations (SIEs) with an approximate impedance boundary condition (IBC) [5]. The IBC has been widely studied [6]- [11] because it can dramatically simplify the solved problems, but it also requires that the skin depth be small for conductive media [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The matrix decomposition algorithm–singular‐value decomposition (MDA–SVD) is another popular iterative solution used to analyze the scattering/radiation , which exploits the well‐known fact that for well‐separated subscatterers, the corresponding submatrices are of low rank and can be compressed. The system matrix resulting from EFIE is often an ill‐conditioned matrix and results in the low convergence of the Krylov iterative method . Although both the numerical complexity and the storage requirement of the iterative solution are less than that of the direct solution, the convergence rate of the iterative solution can vary in an unpredictable way.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The system matrix resulted from EFIE with the higher order hierarchical basis functions is often an ill-conditioned matrix and results in the low convergence of the Krylov iterative method [18]. Simple preconditioners like the diagonal or diagonal blocks of the coefficient matrix can be effective only when the matrix has some degree of diagonal dominance [19].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%